Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarNeed for Speed: Rivals Benchmarked
For the original German article, see here.
Graphics
There's no hiding the fact that Need for Speed: Rivals (like most games) was developed primarily for consoles. You notice the PC version's defective operation almost immediately. We don't just mean the annoying tutorials for the Racer and Cop campaigns -- those can't be avoided on consoles either… see this YouTube video for a humorous edit -- but more than anything we mean the strange key assignments and (from the point of view of a PC gamer) the uncomfortably-arranged menu. Some gamers will simply shake their heads in disbelief at the fact that to reach the graphics options from the garage, you have to hit either the Page Up or Page Down key twice. Mouse support doesn't seem to have been on the developers' radar.
According to the publisher, Electronic Arts, their goal was to make competition between players fairer (Rivals combines single and multiplayer elements) and not put players with weaker hardware at a disadvantage. But it still eludes us as to why EA didn't cap the frame rate a little higher, and why they had to penalize owners of more potent hardware. Or did the party responsible forget that you can tailor the game's settings to your own hardware?
Apart from a few disconnects, the game's graphics made a good or perhaps even a very good impression on us. In order to offer buyers the best visuals possible, the developer Ghost Games turned to DICE's Frostbite 3 Engine. Compared to Battlefield 4, Rivals appears to have both somewhat harder edges (missing anti-aliasing) and to be spongier (no anisotropic filtering, some weaker textures). On the positive side, though, there's a high vegetation density, good lighting, great (weather) effects, and -- one of the trademarks of the series -- snazzy high-class car models. The changeover from day to night is also well-executed, and there's a nice damage model. The graphics aren't the only aspect of the game that has improved -- Rivals' driving experience is also superior (Most Wanted uses the Chameleon Engine).
In terms of sound, there's little to critique about the arcade racer. The roaring motors are accompanied by a dubstep soundtrack. Gamers may not be completely satisfied when they find the graphics menu -- 10 settings options are neither especially many nor especially few. One of the highlights of the graphics menu is Ambient Occlusion (SSAO or HBAO). Fortunately, settings changes are adopted directly within the game, so there's no need to restart.
Benchmark
For our benchmark sequence, we chose a race between two safe-houses in the middle of the map (Pacific Woods). The sequence lasts about a minute (as long as you don't crash) and is good for assessing the level of performance to expect from various devices.
As our tests reveal, Rivals only runs normally when the frame rate is exactly 30 fps. A lower frame rate not only causes the image to jerk, but it also causes the game to run more slowly. The exact opposite is true when the fps cap is crossed, which is possible if you take a roundabout approach. Due to the negative consequences of artificially passing the cap, we tested Rivals in its original version without interfering with the game manually.
Results
If you want to enjoy the new Need for Speed title in its full splendor, i.e. at a resolution of 1920x1080 pixels and full details, you'll need a high-end graphics card. The GeForce GTX 765M was the first card to reach 30 fps in our test sequence. For a resolution of 1366x768 pixels and high graphics options, you'll only need a mid-class GPU (for instance the GT 750M).
Low-end models, on the level of the GeForce GT 630M, or CPU accelerators like the Radeon HD 7660G or HD Graphics 4600, break into a sweat even at low details and 1024x768 pixels. The Iris Pro 5200 is the only chip to approach the 30 fps mark here. Depending on the settings, the hardware demands can be even higher in this game than in Battlefield 4.
| Need for Speed: Rivals | |
| 1920x1080 Ultra / On / HBAO (30 FPS Limit) 1366x768 High / On / SSAO (30 FPS Limit) 1366x768 Medium / Off (30 FPS Limit) 1024x768 Low / Off (30 FPS Limit) | |
| HD Graphics 4600, 4702MQ | |
| Radeon HD 7660G, A10-4600M, Samsung SSD 830 Series MZ-7PC0128D/EU | |
| GeForce GT 630M, 3720QM | |
| Iris Pro Graphics 5200, 4750HQ, Intel SSD 525 Series SSDMCEAC180B3 | |
| GeForce GT 750M, 4702MQ | |
| GeForce GTX 765M, 4700MQ | |
| Radeon HD 8970M, 4700MQ | |
| GeForce GTX 780M, 4700MQ | |
| Radeon R9 280X, 3770K | |
| GeForce GTX 680, 2600K, Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV-0Z000 | |
Verdict
With a little more effort, Rivals could have been a great game. The smart combination of single and multiplayer elements adds a good deal of excitement to the gaming experience. That makes the PC version's weaknesses even more frustrating. Better controls and less spoon-feeding/paternalism would have done the game good.
Test Systems
Our three most important test devices are courtesy of Schenker Technologies (mysn.de):
- W503 (Core i7-4700MQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 765M, GTX 770M, GTX 780M, Radeon HD 8970M & HD Graphics 4600)
- M503 (Core i7-4702MQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GT 750M & HD Graphics 4600)
- XMG P502 (Core i7-3610QM, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 660M, GTX 670MX, GTX 675MX, GTX 680M, Radeon HD 7970M & HD Graphics 4000)
A further thank you goes to Micron for providing the 480 GB Crucial M500, on which Windows 7 Professional 64-bit is installed.
GPU drivers used: Nvidia 331.82 WHQL, AMD 13.11 Beta 9.2, Intel 10.18.10.3345
Overview
